CESTAT Chandigarh held that CENVAT Credit on inputs used in generation of electricity is admissible only to the extent the electricity produced and utilized in the factory of production and not on the portion of electricity transferred/sold to the grid.
The Tribunal held that service tax paid under a partner’s registration can be adjusted against the firm’s liability. However, liability as a sub-contractor was upheld.
CESTAT Delhi held that since imported helicopter is used for private purpose without any remuneration earned from such flights, there is no substantial compliance of Condition No. 104 of Exemption Notification no. 61 of 2017 dated 03.05.2007. Accordingly, confiscation of helicopter upheld.
The Tribunal held that mere non-participation in inquiry and reliance on government-issued IEC and GSTIN cannot establish breach of CBLR obligations. Licence revocation and penalty were quashed for lack of evidence.
The Tribunal held that commission earned for promoting foreign universities qualifies as export of services and does not fall within Rule 2(f) definition of intermediary service. Demand, interest, and penalties were set aside.
The Tribunal confirmed demand under Section 73(2), citing the Managing Director’s admission and failure to register for manpower services. Cum-tax valuation was allowed for recalculation of liability.
The Tribunal held that Notification 1/2016-ST retrospectively expands “specified services,” making head-office services used for export eligible for refund. Rejections based on pre-amendment interpretation were set aside with limited remand for verification.
CESTAT Chennai set aside a ₹92 lakh customs demand on imported natural rubber latex, holding the show cause notice was issued beyond the limitation period. The Tribunal ruled that without proof of wilful misstatement, extended limitation cannot apply.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that CENVAT Credit in respect of input / input services used for construction of building which itself is to be used in the provision of output service of Renting of Immovable Property is admissible. Accordingly, order is set aside and appeal is allowed.
The Tribunal held that once records were audited and within departmental knowledge, extended limitation under Section 73 could not be invoked again, rendering the demand time-barred.
